U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed former President Donald Trump’s classified documents case on Monday, relying in part on a recent Supreme Court concurrence on the constitutional requirements for appointing special counsels.

Cannon ruled that Attorney General Merrick Garland's appointment of Jack Smith as special counsel was unlawful, as the Washington Examiner reports, making pointed reference to Justice Clarence Thomas' thoughts on the matter.

Judge Aileen Cannon's 93-Page Ruling

Judge Aileen Cannon's ruling, which spans 93 pages, dismissed the case against Trump regarding the retention of classified documents. The dismissal was based on constitutional arguments concerning the appointment of special counsels.

Cannon referenced Justice Clarence Thomas's concurring opinion in the recent presidential immunity decision multiple times in her dismissal. Thomas argued that congressional input or statutory authority is necessary for such appointments.

Cannon's ruling emphasized that the Constitution requires both legislative and executive branches to be involved in creating and filling offices like that of a special counsel. She cited Thomas's concurring opinion three times and referred to two other opinions penned by Thomas.

Thomas's Opinion Influences Cannon's Decision

Justice Thomas's opinions played a crucial role in Cannon's decision. In his concurring opinion in the immunity case, Thomas highlighted concerns that the appointment of a special counsel without Senate confirmation or specific legislative action might violate constitutional structure.

Cannon argued that Garland unlawfully appointed Jack Smith as special counsel, noting that Smith had never been Senate-confirmed as a U.S. attorney. Smith had previously worked at the DOJ and investigated Kosovo War crimes before his appointment as special counsel.

Cannon's ruling stated that the appointments clause of the Constitution requires the Senate to confirm a special counsel. Alternatively, Congress could pass a law creating the position and granting the authority to the president, but that has yet to occur.

Implications of Cannon's Ruling

If Cannon's decision stands, it could discredit certain other past special counsel investigations. Smith argued that existing laws allowed Garland to appoint him and now has the option to appeal to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Smith’s office spokesman, Peter Carr, indicated that prosecutors would indeed move forward with an appeal. In his statement, Carr said the dismissal is out of alignment with previous court conclusions that the attorney general is authorized to appoint a special counsel.

“The dismissal of the case deviates from the uniform conclusion of all previous courts to have considered the issue that the Attorney General is statutorily authorized to appoint a Special Counsel,” said Carr. He added, “The Justice Department has authorized the Special Counsel to appeal the court’s order.”

Reactions to the Decision

Former U.S. attorney John Fishwick commented that Justice Thomas's opinions opened the door for Cannon's ruling. “Justice Thomas signaled he thought it was unconstitutional to appoint Jack Smith as Special Counsel and that gave Judge Cannon a legal pathway for today’s decision,” Fishwick said.

Fishwick also noted the significance of the ruling for Trump's legal team, stating, “Jack Smith will appeal and ask for an expedited appeal. … Massive win for the Trump legal team.” Critics have expressed strong reactions to Cannon’s ruling, with some calling it “utterly illegal” and “clearly political.” Cannon has also faced criticism for moving too slowly in addressing the legal disputes in the case.

Justice Clarence Thomas's Viewpoint

Thomas, in the pivotal concurring opinion, wrote, “I write separately to highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure.” He further elaborated on his concerns about Smith's appointment.

Thomas stated, “In this case, the Attorney General purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States. But, I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been ‘established by Law,’ as the Constitution requires.”

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion in the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity, while Thomas’s concurring opinion emphasized his constitutional concerns.

Future Legal Proceedings

The Justice Department has confirmed its support for Smith's appeal, and the case now heads to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The outcome of the appeal could have significant implications for the authority of the Attorney General and the legality of past special counsel appointments.

Last year, Smith charged former President Trump with 40 counts of illegally retaining classified documents and obstructing a federal investigation. This dismissal represents a critical juncture in the legal battles surrounding Trump’s conduct.

Conclusion

Judge Aileen Cannon’s dismissal of former President Donald Trump’s classified documents case, citing Justice Clarence Thomas's opinions, has sparked significant legal and political controversy.  The ruling challenges the legality of the Attorney General’s appointment of special counsels without congressional involvement, leading to an immediate appeal by Jack Smith’s team.

The Justice Department supports the appeal, highlighting the ongoing debate over the constitutional requirements for special counsel appointments.